Jump to content

City, MTA advance plan to bring new Metro-North stations to the Bronx


Via Garibaldi 8

Recommended Posts

THE BRONX

NYC TRANSPORTATION

City, MTA advance plan to bring new Metro-North stations to the Bronx

The first public meeting to discuss these new stations will be held this fall

By Tanay Warerkar@TanayWarerkar  Aug 3, 2018, 2:00pm EDT

shutterstock_499279372.0.jpg

Osugi/Shutterstock

 

The MTA is advancing its plan to bring four new Metro-North stations in the southern and eastern portions of the Bronx. Earlier this week, the city convened the Bronx Metro-North Working Group, which will work with local residents and businesses to study the impact of these stations on the neighborhood, and how best each station can serve its surrounding community. Among the members of the Working Group are Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., City Planning director Marisa Lago, and Department of Transportation Commission Polly Trottenberg.

The project was first announced in 2014, and it’s part of the MTA’s larger Penn Station Access plan, which is looking to provide a connection between the New Haven line and Penn Station should trains not be able to pull into Grand Central on any particular day.

In the Bronx, the new stations will be located at Hunts Point, Parkchester/Van Nest, Morris Park, and Co-op City. This working group will now study improvements around these stations like crosswalks, sidewalks, and wayfinding equipment. They will also look at how to better connect these stations with bus and subway service.

In addition to improvements in and around the station, the working group will also look at developing parcels of land for housing or other community needs. In 2017, the state committed nearly $700 million toward building these new stations, and this fall, the city will hold the first public meeting to discuss the overall project.

Source: https://ny.curbed.com/2018/8/3/17648144/metro-north-bronx-penn-station-access-planning-group

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Let me leave my commentary at the fact that this 'working group' includes no MTA reps...

These meetings are just a formality anyways, especially since Gov. Cuomo and BP Ruben Diaz have been pushing for these stations from the start.

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Co-op City residents advocated for Rail Link buses like the riders in Riverdale do. Co-op might only be as good as the buses that will feed into it.

As for the other stops, Morris Park is going to be a busy stop in both directions at all hours with Hutchinson Metro Center and Einstein nearby. Parkchester might do well also, and Hunts Point will probably be like Fordham where it’ll get more reverse peak riders.

I’m wondering how the overall service pattern is going to be tho, and how it’ll fit in with existing service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

These meetings are just a formality anyways, especially since Gov. Cuomo and BP Ruben Diaz have been pushing for these stations from the start.

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Co-op City residents advocated for Rail Link buses like the riders in Riverdale do. Co-op might only be as good as the buses that will feed into it.

As for the other stops, Morris Park is going to be a busy stop in both directions at all hours with Hutchinson Metro Center and Einstein nearby. Parkchester might do well also, and Hunts Point will probably be like Fordham where it’ll get more reverse peak riders.

I’m wondering how the overall service pattern is going to be tho, and how it’ll fit in with existing service.

I thought that the stations were supposed to be accessible though? We have shuttle buses in Riverdale because both of our stations are right along the Hudson and are isolated.

I agree about your other comments though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I thought that the stations were supposed to be accessible though? We have shuttle buses in Riverdale because both of our stations are right along the Hudson and are isolated.

I agree about your other comments though.

All the stops will be accessible. There won’t be much parking however (if any.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I thought that the stations were supposed to be accessible though? We have shuttle buses in Riverdale because both of our stations are right along the Hudson and are isolated.

I agree about your other comments though.

Co-Op isn't fully accessible Dreiser Loop in Co-Op is over a mile from the proposed station also in Co-Op. That's roughly 239th and Riverdale Ave to Spuyten Duyvil Station or to Riverdale station from that same point. A rail link route would be warranted there are few buses that would feed into the station I'm sure something Limited would be great im sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 1:39 PM, RR503 said:

Let me leave my commentary at the fact that this 'working group' includes no MTA reps...

Forget about the MTA reps, what about Amtrak rep's?  For any of this to work, Amtrak has to give their blessings.  To further complicate matters, CDOT also have to be involved as it will be trains coming from Connecticut that will tentatively be operating to Penn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2018 at 1:40 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm not sure the reps would be that influential anyway.

They're the ones building the line...

54 minutes ago, Truckie said:

Forget about the MTA reps, what about Amtrak rep's?  For any of this to work, Amtrak has to give their blessings.  To further complicate matters, CDOT also have to be involved as it will be trains coming from Connecticut that will tentatively be operating to Penn.

Exactly. This smacks of DeBlasian showmaking. 

For whatever it's worth, I think the money being spent on Co Op city improvements should be spent reducing the barrier posed by 95. Do that, and then all of the sudden Co Op city is less than half a mile fom Baychester (5)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather they extend the (D) via Burke/Gun Hill/Bartow to Bay Plaza instead of a Co-Op City station, as more people would opt for that given transfer options and a cheaper price. As for the others, Hunts Point has the (6) and I doubt the residents could even pay for MNR. Van Nest is also close to the (5) . The only station that I think must be built other than to be a supplement or temp. solution is Morris Park due to the crappy service on Dyre and due to the number of nearby hospitals. I'm not really against these stops, it's just that I am worried about the MTA using them as an excuse to not having a (D) extension or improved (5) service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, RR503 said:

They're the ones building the line...

Exactly. This smacks of DeBlasian showmaking. 

For whatever it's worth, I think the money being spent on Co Op city improvements should be spent reducing the barrier posed by 95. Do that, and then all of the sudden Co Op city is less than half a mile fom Baychester (5)...

Listen, the City knew what they were doing. Co-op is a planned neighborhood, similar to how Riverdale was planned.  The big difference was the end goal of both neighborhoods. Riverdale was built for wealthy Manhattanites so transportation via the current Hudson Line was established from early on.  Both neighborhoods were promised good transportation.  Riverdale overall has it. Co-op City was built on swamp land for average middle class types with the promise of eventually bringing a subway there.   For Riverdale, the subway was never extended further along Broadway. I wonder if Co-op really wants a subway there. It would totally change the neighborhood and it would become probably more expensive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2018 at 9:36 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Listen, the City knew what they were doing. Co-op is a planned neighborhood, similar to how Riverdale was planned.  The big difference was the end goal of both neighborhoods. Riverdale was built for wealthy Manhattanites so transportation via the current Hudson Line was established from early on.  Both neighborhoods were promised good transportation.  Riverdale overall has it. Co-op City was built on swamp land for average middle class types with the promise of eventually bringing a subway there.   For Riverdale, the subway was never extended further along Broadway. I wonder if Co-op really wants a subway there. It would totally change the neighborhood and it would become probably more expensive.  

Not sure the comparison is apt. Riverdale wasn't planned in the same sense as Co-Op City. Over 150 years ago the railroad was built to Albany up the Hudson. Soon after some rich folks built mansions in Riverdale near the tracks and so a station was built to accommodate them. That was about the extent of the planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

Not sure the comparison is apt. Riverdale wasn't planned in the same sense as Co-Op City. Over 150 years ago the railroad was built to Albany up the Hudson. Soon after some rich folks built mansions in Riverdale near the tracks and so a station was built to accommodate them. That was about the extent of the planning.

Of course not, but planned is planned.  You need to do more digging because Riverdale is definitely a planned community and not just Fieldston either, including all of the co-ops down in Spuyten Duyvil.  Even the layout of the streets was planned. You think it's a coincidence that there's no street grid in Riverdale? That was done on purpose.  

Co-op City was planned as an affordable area for working to middle class folks. That's the main difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2018 at 8:01 PM, Truckie said:

Forget about the MTA reps, what about Amtrak rep's?  For any of this to work, Amtrak has to give their blessings.  To further complicate matters, CDOT also have to be involved as it will be trains coming from Connecticut that will tentatively be operating to Penn.

If you click through to the links, you will see that this is a project by City Planning Dept. to improve the connections between the new stations and the local communities. In other words, this has nothing to do with the trains or stations per se, but rather traffic management, parking, streetscapes, crosswalks, etc. It is purely a city project. So, no need for direct membership by MTA (even less, CDOT). But the project's documents are replete with references to tight cooperation with MTA, so clearly they will be working with MTA as needed.

 

On 8/10/2018 at 5:39 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Of course not, but planned is planned.  You need to do more digging because Riverdale is definitely a planned community and not just Fieldston either, including all of the co-ops down in Spuyten Duyvil.  Even the layout of the streets was planned. You think it's a coincidence that there's no street grid in Riverdale? That was done on purpose.  

Co-op City was planned as an affordable area for working to middle class folks. That's the main difference.

I know a lot about the history of Riverdale. There is in fact a street grid, except in Fieldston and west of the highway. The former because that is truly a planned community; the latter because it arose as a site for mansions before the city had a street grid. The street grid  in the rest of Riverdale is not uniform like in Manhattan because of the topography, but it is there. The numbered streets are about the same distance apart as those in Manhattan - you still get roughly 20 blocks to a mile - as opposed to the rest of the Bronx where the numbered streets are often about 3 Manhattan-type blocks apart. And there are no numbered streets in most of the Bronx.

 

On 8/10/2018 at 5:39 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Of course not, but planned is planned.  You need to do more digging because Riverdale is definitely a planned community and not just Fieldston either, including all of the co-ops down in Spuyten Duyvil.  Even the layout of the streets was planned. You think it's a coincidence that there's no street grid in Riverdale? That was done on purpose.  

Co-op City was planned as an affordable area for working to middle class folks. That's the main difference.

I doubt the co-ops in Spuyten Duvil were "planned" in the normal sense of some central planning by the city, as was the case with Co-Op City. They arose organically in response to economic forces after the Henry Hudson Bridge was built, which greatly increased access to Riverdale from Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Italianstallion said:

I know a lot about the history of Riverdale. There is in fact a street grid, except in Fieldston and west of the highway. The former because that is truly a planned community; the latter because it arose as a site for mansions before the city had a street grid. The street grid  in the rest of Riverdale is not uniform like in Manhattan because of the topography, but it is there. The numbered streets are about the same distance apart as those in Manhattan - you still get roughly 20 blocks to a mile - as opposed to the rest of the Bronx where the numbered streets are often about 3 Manhattan-type blocks apart. And there are no numbered streets in most of the Bronx.

Right, but it's not a true street grid, not even down in Spuyten Duyvil, because all of that was large houses or mansions prior to the Henry Hudson Parkway, some of which is still around, so you could argue really that the entire area was built similar to Fieldston.  When I walk from Metro-North and walk along Arlington or Netherland, it's hard to tell if you're in Fieldston or in Spuyten Duyvil around 231st.  On my block I have the same kind of houses you can find in Fieldston from the 1920s, back off from the street on decent plots of land.  I can't tell you how many people get lost up here because it isn't a true street grid. The one thing I always chuckle about is when Netherland Avenue comes up.  Well is it Netherland Avenue which abruptly reappears in North Riverdale or Netherland Avenue in Spuyten Duyvil and Central Riverdale.   The street layout was one of the first things a friend of mine commented on when he drove up.  He's like this was man made in terms of how the streets meander about, and it's true. The streets were designed to follow the natural layout of the land, sloping around rocks and such.

1 minute ago, Italianstallion said:

I doubt the co-ops in Spuyten Duvil were "planned" in the normal sense of some central planning by the city, as was the case with Co-Op City. They arose organically in response to economic forces after the Henry Hudson Bridge was built, which greatly increased access to Riverdale from Manhattan.

Philip Birnbaum was a famous architect who designed several buildings in Riverdale - the Skyview, the Whitehall, Hudson Tower, and 2621 Palisades.  These are all buildings that span from Spuyten Duyvil up to North Riverdale.  Co-op City and Parkchester are both planned communities.  Different type of planning, but planning nonetheless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Right, but it's not a true street grid, not even down in Spuyten Duyvil, because all of that was large houses or mansions prior to the Henry Hudson Parkway, some of which is still around, so you could argue really that the entire area was built similar to Fieldston.  When I walk from Metro-North and walk along Arlington or Netherland, it's hard to tell if you're in Fieldston or in Spuyten Duyvil around 231st.  On my block I have the same kind of houses you can find in Fieldston from the 1920s, back off from the street on decent plots of land.  I can't tell you how many people get lost up here because it isn't a true street grid. The one thing I always chuckle about is when Netherland Avenue comes up.  Well is it Netherland Avenue which abruptly reappears in North Riverdale or Netherland Avenue in Spuyten Duyvil and Central Riverdale.   The street layout was one of the first things a friend of mine commented on when he drove up.  He's like this was man made in terms of how the streets meander about, and it's true. The streets were designed to follow the natural layout of the land, sloping around rocks and such.

Philip Birnbaum was a famous architect who designed several buildings in Riverdale - the Skyview, the Whitehall, Hudson Tower, and 2621 Palisades.  These are all buildings that span from Spuyten Duyvil up to North Riverdale.  Co-op City and Parkchester are both planned communities.  Different type of planning, but planning nonetheless.

 

Yes, Co-Op City And Parkchester are both planned communities. To assert that Riverdale is also a planned community rips the heart out of the meaning of “planned.”

By the way, the reason there are two discontinuous segments of Netherland Ave. is because the parkway was built over the previously connecting segment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2018 at 8:59 PM, RR503 said:

For whatever it's worth, I think the money being spent on Co Op city improvements should be spent reducing the barrier posed by 95. Do that, and then all of the sudden Co Op city is less than half a mile fom Baychester (5)...

Haven't been to this area in quite a while and I agree there should be better connections over the Thruway. But even measured as the crow flies there are going to be areas east of Desier loop and south of Bartow that are well over a half a mile and over a mile in some cases from the Baychester (5) especially moving into the line (6)  coverage area with section 5's proximity to Pelham Bay. With that said I know a good amount of people already use the (5) at Baychester using a footbridge with some using Gun Hill as well via bus. Do you think better connectivity with feeder routes would help? I know the BX30 Kinda serves (5) Baychester Ave Station. The Bx28/38 (5) GunHill and the BX23/12/29 and Q50 Pelham Bay (6) would a bus restructure work?  50,000 people is quite a bit to move whatever happened to that Bus study conducted a few years back?  I guess I'm wondering do we not feel Penn Access is a good idea? Or is it more of the logistics not adding up? Space in Penn, Headways? Co-Op getting linked into regional rail I always viewed this as a good thing. I mean Co-Op would be like 9th or 10th biggest Municipality in New York on its own it would only help, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2018 at 8:59 PM, RR503 said:

For whatever it's worth, I think the money being spent on Co Op city improvements should be spent reducing the barrier posed by 95. Do that, and then all of the sudden Co Op city is less than half a mile fom Baychester (5)...

We can't just pull a New Haven and just tear up a highway to unite two neighborhoods. I do concede though that the street grid in that area could have been better thought out.

1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

I guess I'm wondering do we not feel Penn Access is a good idea? Or is it more of the logistics not adding up? Space in Penn, Headways? Co-Op getting linked into regional rail I always viewed this as a good thing. I mean Co-Op would be like 9th or 10th biggest Municipality in New York on its own it would only help, right?

Penn Access is going to be great long term, but the Co-op City station needs a better feeder system. The Bx23, Bx29 and Q50 usually run only every half hour, the Bx28 runs every 20 minutes, the 23 and 29 are the only two that go straight to Pelham Bay, and only the Bx23 and Q50 hit every area of Co-op City from where the train station is going to be.

At a minimum, the Bx23 needs to be beefed up big time so that every resident has an opportunity to use those trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:47 PM, Italianstallion said:

If you click through to the links, you will see that this is a project by City Planning Dept. to improve the connections between the new stations and the local communities. In other words, this has nothing to do with the trains or stations per se, but rather traffic management, parking, streetscapes, crosswalks, etc. It is purely a city project. So, no need for direct membership by MTA (even less, CDOT). But the project's documents are replete with references to tight cooperation with MTA, so clearly they will be working with MTA as needed.

That's great.  Unfortunately, the whole concept of these stations coming into existence is in the very early stages.  If the train service doesn't happen, the city and Bronx Metro-North Working Group have a lot less to plan. 

For the rail service to materialize, you need approval from the MTA (New York State), the operator of the tracks and Penn Station (Amtrak) and the entity that contracts with Metro North on the New Haven Line on what happens with New Haven Line trains (CDOT and the State of Connecticut).   The last is an issue as it is because of them of the whole Fordham debacle with New Haven Line trains.  Should Amtrak give their blessing, it will come with a price tag.  No different than the price tag of Amtrak currently using Metro North's tracks.  What that price tag will be is anyone guess. 

Additionally, if and when this materializes, crews will have to be trained on the territory, and equipment will have to be able to be used between both territories.  In years past New Jersey Transit's trains were used for the New Haven Line football trains for this very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Truckie said:

That's great.  Unfortunately, the whole concept of these stations coming into existence is in the very early stages.  If the train service doesn't happen, the city and Bronx Metro-North Working Group have a lot less to plan. 

For the rail service to materialize, you need approval from the MTA (New York State), the operator of the tracks and Penn Station (Amtrak) and the entity that contracts with Metro North on the New Haven Line on what happens with New Haven Line trains (CDOT and the State of Connecticut).   The last is an issue as it is because of them of the whole Fordham debacle with New Haven Line trains.  Should Amtrak give their blessing, it will come with a price tag.  No different than the price tag of Amtrak currently using Metro North's tracks.  What that price tag will be is anyone guess. 

Additionally, if and when this materializes, crews will have to be trained on the territory, and equipment will have to be able to be used between both territories.  In years past New Jersey Transit's trains were used for the New Haven Line football trains for this very reason.

Of course. But MTA has approved. The other approvals are in negotiation. Amtrak and MTA have worked out all issues relating to Harold Interlocking and other matters relating to East Side Access. I don't see the problem. I give the City kudos for being proactive on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2018 at 9:22 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

I'd rather they extend the (D) via Burke/Gun Hill/Bartow to Bay Plaza instead of a Co-Op City station, as more people would opt for that given transfer options and a cheaper price. As for the others, Hunts Point has the (6) and I doubt the residents could even pay for MNR. Van Nest is also close to the (5) . The only station that I think must be built other than to be a supplement or temp. solution is Morris Park due to the crappy service on Dyre and due to the number of nearby hospitals. I'm not really against these stops, it's just that I am worried about the MTA using them as an excuse to not having a (D) extension or improved (5) service. 

The stations would mostly help reverse-commuters heading out to Westchester and Connecticut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Truckie said:

Additionally, if and when this materializes, crews will have to be trained on the territory, and equipment will have to be able to be used between both territories.  In years past New Jersey Transit's trains were used for the New Haven Line football trains for this very reason.

Is it really that difficult to train crews on the additional 15 miles? That's really all that's new here. And the M8's can handle both over and under riding 3rd rail. The hardest thing here is adding a substation and extending the 3rd rail territory to the Hell Gate a bit beyond the 25Hz Phase break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Truckie said:

That's great.  Unfortunately, the whole concept of these stations coming into existence is in the very early stages.  If the train service doesn't happen, the city and Bronx Metro-North Working Group have a lot less to plan. 

For the rail service to materialize, you need approval from the MTA (New York State), the operator of the tracks and Penn Station (Amtrak) and the entity that contracts with Metro North on the New Haven Line on what happens with New Haven Line trains (CDOT and the State of Connecticut).   The last is an issue as it is because of them of the whole Fordham debacle with New Haven Line trains.  Should Amtrak give their blessing, it will come with a price tag.  No different than the price tag of Amtrak currently using Metro North's tracks.  What that price tag will be is anyone guess. 

Additionally, if and when this materializes, crews will have to be trained on the territory, and equipment will have to be able to be used between both territories.  In years past New Jersey Transit's trains were used for the New Haven Line football trains for this very reason.

Thanks to the Prince, this project is already approved, studied and funded. Look it up. This is why the working group exists. I'm not sure about how the CT discussions work, but evidently they were successful, as we're now shelling out the cash for those new stations and related infrastructure. 

As for this project's benefits, I see them being limited at best in NY. Most of the chosen station sites are not at all central to the neighborhoods they serve, so while I'm sure some will use them, it seems quite possible that, barring intra-city fare rationalization, they'll end up with middling ridership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Is it really that difficult to train crews on the additional 15 miles? 

It's not difficult, but it's not going to happen overnight.  It's a matter of scheduling and covering jobs.   I would guess it would take about 4 months for each crew member to qualify. I forgot, along with the physical characteristics, it's a different set of operating rules.  Not knowing what their operating rules are comprised of, I can't say exactly how long it will take.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.